Computer literacy is decreasing though because as a society we aren't focusing on it. Computer literacy courses in school should teach basic programming. Having at least coded in Logo would make a huge difference in people's ability to understand computers.
It will create people with basic computer literacy. A good deal of education is about creating people with exposure to a topic but far short of professional knowledge.
For ARIN 2006 - 13/8s used 2007 - 8/8s used 2008 - 9/8s used 2009 - 10/8s used 2010 -- 22/8s used 0 remain as of Feb 2011.
ARIN had small sets left and probably some stuff they can give out but we are depleted.
In terms of best solution I think the best solution is to convert. I don't know how crazy disjointed people want to make the routing tables and I don't see why other countries would give more IPv4 space to the USA rather than say Africa which needs it far more.
People like nice stuff. And Apple is convincing more and more companies that people are willing to pay for nice stuff. Though Apple is exceptionally good at balancing nice and cost.
I think there have been some huge paradigm shifts in biology.
For example: Darwin's Origin of Species gave a mechanism for evolution. Once there was a mechanism the entire paradigm shifted to looking at traits as adaptions to environments. The whole way we understood life and examined species changed. Prior to Darwin creatures shaped their environment after Darwin we had a duality of creates forming and being formed by their environment.
Well if you remove the site license complication, which you agree is a side issue.
That's just a proprietary copyright. What you are saying is companies should have fully proprietary copyright but distribute source. Most vendors do offer that. For example http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx
Not one they could use. Your definition of "nothing was lost" excludes any of the advantages of code having ever been open in the first place. What is the difference between SGI's X-windows and Microsoft's Excel?
How it was lost was that people who wanted an open X did not have an effectual choice in terms of open source. In 1990 if you ask the question, "can you run an Open Source X to accomplish your work" the answer was "no". The answer being "no" not "yes" is how it was lost. What difference does it make if a codebase continues to exist that is worthless?
And X11 is still using the MIT/BSD style license, so nothing has changed, except that there are no longer 10 companies around who can fork it in different directions, and so the forking issue is less visible now than it was then
XFree86 has merged with X11 so the X11 implementation and the specification are interwoven. Linux which used XFree86 (now X.org) is the dominant user of X11. But if X11 ever got popular, absolutely, the setup is perfect for a repeat of history.
____
In terms of the model you propose what you are describing is a proprietary site license. Some packages are sold that way. It has become far less common with the rise of Open Source. Unlimited seats vs. per seat is just a difference in a large upfront fee or a constant incremental cost, there is no reason to mandate unlimited seats once you are charging.
So if we drop that... Proprietary Unixes were often sold that way. A few components were binary but almost everything was distributed in terms of shell scripts or often easy to modify source code.
Oracle 7/8 is an example though the license is per CPU not per site. There are huge layers that used to be on the supported website which customers submitted to one another and that were part of a semi-supported code base of extensions. The engine itself wasn't open source but those huge layers on top of it were, and still are.
Anyway, take away right to redistribute and this is a proprietary license. I don't see this model as really doing all that much over proprietary. To me the advantage of Open Source licenses is you inherit a huge body of code for your project and in exchange your modifications get passed on to someone you don't know for something you don't care about. For example Apple spent a fortune getting GCC to work well power Power chips. They got some benefit from that but the many beneficiary was Sony with the PlayStation. On the other hand without having a GCC immediately available Apple never would have been able to bring over XCode and the entire OpenStep development environment to OSX. The C compiler would have been commercial not free and hence no Object-C renaissance of Mac programming around 2002 and no swarm into iOS programming 2008+. Even though Apple no longer uses GCC it benefits tremendously from the momentum it established which is why it is now happily contributing to LLVM.
As far as it not working. I'd say look at the huge variety and wealth of open source software and realize that almost all of it is less than 20 years old. It clearly has worked.
which open source solutions are applications like iTunes, Safari, Angry Birds, Keynote, et al taken from?
I wasn't saying everything at Apple was based on Open Source the GP was doing a comparison. What I was comparing was how they handled GUIs in terms of and in comparison to open source. That is on Apple many open source applications need to focus on interface first. Safari which you wanted as a counter example is actually an example. Safari is a GUI wrapper around WebKit ( http://www.webkit.org/ ) which is a wrapper around the KHTML engine from KDE's http://www.konqueror.org/features/browser.php .
As for iTunes: iTunes as it exists today is a bunch of integrated services. It isn't really a selling point for great interface rather it is something Apple is working around. However iTunes started as a music player, a DAAP server / client combination. Amarok, Banshee, Rhythmbox... are example clients. In terms of the server mt-daapd / Firefly, or Tangerine is an example server. Though I don't think there is any code dependency. Apple was too far ahead of the Open Source community on this one.
Angry Birds isn't Apple. Keynote has even less to do with Open Source but is based on a closed source program from NeXT, Concurrence. ____
In terms of Linux's lack of success I don't think it has failed. There are too many areas where it has been incredibly successful: -- it has become 2nd place server OS -- it is far and away the 1st place Super Computing OS -- it has become a major virtual environment for mainframe software -- it is a substantial player in embedded and likely the largest player though still nothing like dominant market share -- it is the most popular phone tablet OS and a player in a few of the lesser known alternatives (Tizen, Sailfish)
In terms of desktop I always felt the Linux community was underestimating the complexity because the failed to understand how many verticals there were. I assumed the progression would end up looking for Windows like it did for Sun:
1) People are running exclusively closed source software on closed source OSes 2) People are running some open source software on closed source OSes 3) People are running mainly open source software on closed source OSes 4) People are running mainly open source software on open source OSes
On the desktop with Firefox, we moved from (1) to (2). That's opened the door for the motion from (2) to (3) which is what is happening with programs like Open Office. We also see solutions for most verticals being created. It is happening.
That wasn't the problem. First off X servers were at that point frequently hardware, the issue was X clients. There were lots of workstation OSes where the X server was extra. OS/2 Lan, Novell Lans... could have used X as a way to remotely display applications. There were commercial X servers for Windows and Mac. And even after there were free OSes say around '94 it took about another 6 years till XFree86 caught up. And as I mentioned some of those features aren't in Linux today, 2 decades later.
That is an insane level of growth. One of the things that doesn't get discussed a lot here was Verizon, AT&Ts and Sprint's sales numbers for postpay (around 70%) marketshare. I don't know however how large the global cellphone software market is x-USA.
The other data I'd love to know is how much cloud based solutions like Dropbox and Evernote that owe a lot of their revenue to mobile app are getting.
The best example is X-Windowing system. That started out as an MIT project and then the various Unixes created their own closed source proprietary versions. The effect was the open source version was worthless the worthwhile versions were closed source. When there was a desire to create something even usable, XFree86 it took many years to reconstruct.
In the end X is back to being open source but it was about a decade of serious effort to restore it. And still a lot of features from IRIX, Sun, NeXT... aren't in X11.org.
Absolutely. Also the direct free software user community is less interested in design than they are in functionality. The web itself is much more exciting from a design perspective. Tumblr, photo sharing... are all much more exciting for the people who like to create and the people who like to consume design.
RMS saw lots of open source projects that started with MIT style licenses end up closed. LLVM doesn't prove anything. As BSD style licenses are coming back into fashion we'll see where we stand in ten years. I suspect watching BSD style project close will change people's mind about copyleft, the same thing that was true by the mid 1980s.
I'm not convinced that it is because iOS developers are so much more talented.
I don't think it is a question of more talented it is a question of who are the iOS developers. Apple customers have consistently shown 1) A willingness to pay more for software 2) A willingness to buy applications that are mainly interface upgrades of open source solutions 3) A hostility towards software with a bad UI
The result is people who design for iOS spend time on graphic design. So in terms of interface, yes they are more talented and more focused.
Well if the RIRs didn't want it they should have put some incentives in place to deploy IPv6.
They have. They have unequivocally indicated this is the direction for the industry, attacking ideas like carrier NAT. And they have burned through the IPv4 addresses fast so that ISPs wouldn't have a choice. The result is that most carriers and ISPs are now finally working through the IPv6 issues in a serious way and we will see more and more deployments.
Growing ISPs are going to have no choice but to deploy some kind of mechanism for users to access v4 resources without giving those users a public V4 IP. There are basically 3 choices.
They aren't doing any of those 3, though (1) is close. What they are doing for home / small business is what they already do on phones.
1) Long term IPv6 address (possibly fixed) 2) Pooled IPv4 addresses which are dropped when not in use.
As they begin to privilege IPv6 public services over IPv4 services (i.e. looking for IPv6 address first on DNS, lower latency, more bandwidth...) customers will naturally start migrating towards IPv6 usage mostly. With most people getting most common services from the IPv6 network, they might be able to able to get to something like a 4::1 or 5::1 ratio of homes to pooled IPv4 addresses very quickly. But there isn't going to be any NAT. While your household is using a IPv4 addresses it is exclusively your address.
Few providers seem to be showing much interest in making IPv6 available to customers.
Understood, but it doesn't matter. Right now we need carriers and ISPs to work through IPv6 we really don't need much from end users. For 2013 IPv6 for small end users is a nice, not a needed. It is important that enterprises start getting their IPv6 connections, for testing but that's about it. The focus should be on carriers working out the remaining issues on their side.
I understand. The Schwartzian version invokes the -M operation N times, while the reduced version invokes in N*log(N) times, it is much slower if -M is slow. But the idea was that the Perl was less readable while comparing the efficient N-times Perl to the N*log(N)-times Ruby. I just pointed out that if you made the Perl equally inefficient the code got a lot cleaner, he wasn't doing an apples to apples comparison.
Perl is the duct tape of computer science. Python is a good attempt to create a dynamic applications programming language. "There’s more than one way to do it" is key to Perl's whole approach and Python is just the opposite. I agree that some of what Python is a good alternative to Perl, I don't agree on replacement.
That's readable it just involves several constructs that are complex -- assuming that your formulas have a missing symbol. Saying that is unreadable, is like saying this sentence is unreadable in English because it involves an analogy and analogies are not basic.
Nope. The maximum they give out to end uses is a/48, unless they meet rather complex criteria. (http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans)
Here is the breakout:
3 bits = format prefix (right now always 001) 13 bits = TLA ID top level identifier 8 bits = RESV reserved expansion (this is where nasty routing stuff will end up in the future) 16 bits = NLA ID identifiers within carriers / ISPs 16 bits = subnet identifier 64 bits = interface identifier
That is exactly the plan though even larger. Since generally you would want phones and computers on a separate subnet for something like a school you might very well give the district a/56, 256 subnets. Large businesses are going to be given/48s.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a few languages for education exist that do have easy setup and IDEs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_educational_programming_languages
Computer literacy is decreasing though because as a society we aren't focusing on it. Computer literacy courses in school should teach basic programming. Having at least coded in Logo would make a huge difference in people's ability to understand computers.
It will create people with basic computer literacy. A good deal of education is about creating people with exposure to a topic but far short of professional knowledge.
For ARIN /8s used /8s used /8s used /8s used /8s used
2006 - 13
2007 - 8
2008 - 9
2009 - 10
2010 -- 22
0 remain as of Feb 2011.
ARIN had small sets left and probably some stuff they can give out but we are depleted.
In terms of best solution I think the best solution is to convert. I don't know how crazy disjointed people want to make the routing tables and I don't see why other countries would give more IPv4 space to the USA rather than say Africa which needs it far more.
People like nice stuff. And Apple is convincing more and more companies that people are willing to pay for nice stuff. Though Apple is exceptionally good at balancing nice and cost.
I think there have been some huge paradigm shifts in biology.
For example: Darwin's Origin of Species gave a mechanism for evolution. Once there was a mechanism the entire paradigm shifted to looking at traits as adaptions to environments. The whole way we understood life and examined species changed. Prior to Darwin creatures shaped their environment after Darwin we had a duality of creates forming and being formed by their environment.
Well if you remove the site license complication, which you agree is a side issue.
That's just a proprietary copyright. What you are saying is companies should have fully proprietary copyright but distribute source. Most vendors do offer that. For example http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx
Not one they could use. Your definition of "nothing was lost" excludes any of the advantages of code having ever been open in the first place. What is the difference between SGI's X-windows and Microsoft's Excel?
How it was lost was that people who wanted an open X did not have an effectual choice in terms of open source. In 1990 if you ask the question, "can you run an Open Source X to accomplish your work" the answer was "no". The answer being "no" not "yes" is how it was lost. What difference does it make if a codebase continues to exist that is worthless?
And X11 is still using the MIT/BSD style license, so nothing has changed, except that there are no longer 10 companies around who can fork it in different directions, and so the forking issue is less visible now than it was then
XFree86 has merged with X11 so the X11 implementation and the specification are interwoven. Linux which used XFree86 (now X.org) is the dominant user of X11. But if X11 ever got popular, absolutely, the setup is perfect for a repeat of history.
____
In terms of the model you propose what you are describing is a proprietary site license. Some packages are sold that way. It has become far less common with the rise of Open Source. Unlimited seats vs. per seat is just a difference in a large upfront fee or a constant incremental cost, there is no reason to mandate unlimited seats once you are charging.
So if we drop that...
Proprietary Unixes were often sold that way. A few components were binary but almost everything was distributed in terms of shell scripts or often easy to modify source code.
Oracle 7/8 is an example though the license is per CPU not per site. There are huge layers that used to be on the supported website which customers submitted to one another and that were part of a semi-supported code base of extensions. The engine itself wasn't open source but those huge layers on top of it were, and still are.
Anyway, take away right to redistribute and this is a proprietary license. I don't see this model as really doing all that much over proprietary. To me the advantage of Open Source licenses is you inherit a huge body of code for your project and in exchange your modifications get passed on to someone you don't know for something you don't care about. For example Apple spent a fortune getting GCC to work well power Power chips. They got some benefit from that but the many beneficiary was Sony with the PlayStation. On the other hand without having a GCC immediately available Apple never would have been able to bring over XCode and the entire OpenStep development environment to OSX. The C compiler would have been commercial not free and hence no Object-C renaissance of Mac programming around 2002 and no swarm into iOS programming 2008+. Even though Apple no longer uses GCC it benefits tremendously from the momentum it established which is why it is now happily contributing to LLVM.
As far as it not working. I'd say look at the huge variety and wealth of open source software and realize that almost all of it is less than 20 years old. It clearly has worked.
which open source solutions are applications like iTunes, Safari, Angry Birds, Keynote, et al taken from?
I wasn't saying everything at Apple was based on Open Source the GP was doing a comparison. What I was comparing was how they handled GUIs in terms of and in comparison to open source. That is on Apple many open source applications need to focus on interface first. Safari which you wanted as a counter example is actually an example. Safari is a GUI wrapper around WebKit ( http://www.webkit.org/ ) which is a wrapper around the KHTML engine from KDE's http://www.konqueror.org/features/browser.php .
As for iTunes: iTunes as it exists today is a bunch of integrated services. It isn't really a selling point for great interface rather it is something Apple is working around. However iTunes started as a music player, a DAAP server / client combination. Amarok, Banshee, Rhythmbox... are example clients. In terms of the server mt-daapd / Firefly, or Tangerine is an example server. Though I don't think there is any code dependency. Apple was too far ahead of the Open Source community on this one.
Angry Birds isn't Apple. Keynote has even less to do with Open Source but is based on a closed source program from NeXT, Concurrence.
____
In terms of Linux's lack of success I don't think it has failed. There are too many areas where it has been incredibly successful:
-- it has become 2nd place server OS
-- it is far and away the 1st place Super Computing OS
-- it has become a major virtual environment for mainframe software
-- it is a substantial player in embedded and likely the largest player though still nothing like dominant market share
-- it is the most popular phone tablet OS and a player in a few of the lesser known alternatives (Tizen, Sailfish)
In terms of desktop I always felt the Linux community was underestimating the complexity because the failed to understand how many verticals there were. I assumed the progression would end up looking for Windows like it did for Sun:
1) People are running exclusively closed source software on closed source OSes
2) People are running some open source software on closed source OSes
3) People are running mainly open source software on closed source OSes
4) People are running mainly open source software on open source OSes
On the desktop with Firefox, we moved from (1) to (2). That's opened the door for the motion from (2) to (3) which is what is happening with programs like Open Office. We also see solutions for most verticals being created. It is happening.
That wasn't the problem. First off X servers were at that point frequently hardware, the issue was X clients. There were lots of workstation OSes where the X server was extra. OS/2 Lan, Novell Lans... could have used X as a way to remotely display applications. There were commercial X servers for Windows and Mac. And even after there were free OSes say around '94 it took about another 6 years till XFree86 caught up. And as I mentioned some of those features aren't in Linux today, 2 decades later.
No the issue was not just bad kernels.
That is an insane level of growth. One of the things that doesn't get discussed a lot here was Verizon, AT&Ts and Sprint's sales numbers for postpay (around 70%) marketshare. I don't know however how large the global cellphone software market is x-USA.
The other data I'd love to know is how much cloud based solutions like Dropbox and Evernote that owe a lot of their revenue to mobile app are getting.
How am I saying that? I'm saying the concerns about BSD/MIT style licensing being diverted into commercial are justified.
The best example is X-Windowing system. That started out as an MIT project and then the various Unixes created their own closed source proprietary versions. The effect was the open source version was worthless the worthwhile versions were closed source. When there was a desire to create something even usable, XFree86 it took many years to reconstruct.
In the end X is back to being open source but it was about a decade of serious effort to restore it. And still a lot of features from IRIX, Sun, NeXT... aren't in X11.org.
Absolutely. Also the direct free software user community is less interested in design than they are in functionality. The web itself is much more exciting from a design perspective. Tumblr, photo sharing ... are all much more exciting for the people who like to create and the people who like to consume design.
RMS saw lots of open source projects that started with MIT style licenses end up closed. LLVM doesn't prove anything. As BSD style licenses are coming back into fashion we'll see where we stand in ten years. I suspect watching BSD style project close will change people's mind about copyleft, the same thing that was true by the mid 1980s.
How is he not practical? Think about how many "unrealistic"goals he achieved. RMS may not like the apple analogy but the think different shoe fits.
I'm not convinced that it is because iOS developers are so much more talented.
I don't think it is a question of more talented it is a question of who are the iOS developers. Apple customers have consistently shown
1) A willingness to pay more for software
2) A willingness to buy applications that are mainly interface upgrades of open source solutions
3) A hostility towards software with a bad UI
The result is people who design for iOS spend time on graphic design. So in terms of interface, yes they are more talented and more focused.
Well if the RIRs didn't want it they should have put some incentives in place to deploy IPv6.
They have. They have unequivocally indicated this is the direction for the industry, attacking ideas like carrier NAT. And they have burned through the IPv4 addresses fast so that ISPs wouldn't have a choice. The result is that most carriers and ISPs are now finally working through the IPv6 issues in a serious way and we will see more and more deployments.
Growing ISPs are going to have no choice but to deploy some kind of mechanism for users to access v4 resources without giving those users a public V4 IP. There are basically 3 choices.
They aren't doing any of those 3, though (1) is close. What they are doing for home / small business is what they already do on phones.
1) Long term IPv6 address (possibly fixed)
2) Pooled IPv4 addresses which are dropped when not in use.
As they begin to privilege IPv6 public services over IPv4 services (i.e. looking for IPv6 address first on DNS, lower latency, more bandwidth...) customers will naturally start migrating towards IPv6 usage mostly. With most people getting most common services from the IPv6 network, they might be able to able to get to something like a 4::1 or 5::1 ratio of homes to pooled IPv4 addresses very quickly. But there isn't going to be any NAT. While your household is using a IPv4 addresses it is exclusively your address.
Few providers seem to be showing much interest in making IPv6 available to customers.
Understood, but it doesn't matter. Right now we need carriers and ISPs to work through IPv6 we really don't need much from end users. For 2013 IPv6 for small end users is a nice, not a needed. It is important that enterprises start getting their IPv6 connections, for testing but that's about it. The focus should be on carriers working out the remaining issues on their side.
I understand. The Schwartzian version invokes the -M operation N times, while the reduced version invokes in N*log(N) times, it is much slower if -M is slow. But the idea was that the Perl was less readable while comparing the efficient N-times Perl to the N*log(N)-times Ruby. I just pointed out that if you made the Perl equally inefficient the code got a lot cleaner, he wasn't doing an apples to apples comparison.
Perl is the duct tape of computer science. Python is a good attempt to create a dynamic applications programming language. "There’s more than one way to do it" is key to Perl's whole approach and Python is just the opposite. I agree that some of what Python is a good alternative to Perl, I don't agree on replacement.
The two big things that Perl brought to the table
a) The whole revolution towards dynamic languages. In particular Python and Ruby.
b) CGI and the use of dynamic web contract in a practical way.
Both (a) and (b) are vital for Javascript.
You aren't writing the same function. Why not skip the two maps and do:
@sorted_array = sort{ (-M $a) cmp (-M $b) } @files_array;
____
and if you like the mtime rather than -M just define a 1 line subroutines.
That's readable it just involves several constructs that are complex -- assuming that your formulas have a missing symbol. Saying that is unreadable, is like saying this sentence is unreadable in English because it involves an analogy and analogies are not basic.
Nope. The maximum they give out to end uses is a /48, unless they meet rather complex criteria. (http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans)
Here is the breakout:
3 bits = format prefix (right now always 001)
13 bits = TLA ID top level identifier
8 bits = RESV reserved expansion (this is where nasty routing stuff will end up in the future)
16 bits = NLA ID identifiers within carriers / ISPs
16 bits = subnet identifier
64 bits = interface identifier
That is exactly the plan though even larger. Since generally you would want phones and computers on a separate subnet for something like a school you might very well give the district a /56, 256 subnets. Large businesses are going to be given /48s.